Obama to AIPAC: I have Israel's back

It is hard to get excited about Obama going the tough guy route. Didn't he say nearly the same thing to Eric Cantor during the budget talks? We all saw how that went.

99% of Obama's work in this department consists of public, vocal, and aggressive stances against Israeli policies. One interview is not going to change that.
 
Obama's foreign policy work has been aces so far so he gets the benefit of the doubt from me.

Can't say the same on the domestic homefront.
 
Disagree on the aces characterization. The following are failures to me:

1) His "leading from behind doctrine" related to Libya,
2) Engagement policy towards rogue nations including Iran and most depressingly Syria.
3) His "reset" policy with Russia
4) America remaining totally mute and detached during Middle Eastern uprisings against Autocratic regimes.

He has been able to extend or see to a close in some cases programs that were in progress when he came into office. He was gutsy in the OBL capture/kill mission. Bravo to him there. His predator drone policy against terrorists and strong stance with Pakistan has been refreshing and very effective.

So I don't think aces but he has been surprisingly pragmatic and had some wins. This is a big contrast to his domestic agenda.
 
1) Italy had the only real vested interest in Libya as it would bear the brunt of refugees leaving the country. Britian had a rather shaddy energy/economic interest in dealing with the Qadaffi regime. What other vested interests were there?

2) Iranian sanctions are a result of Obama giving up his engagement policy in Iran. They are two separate things. Syria and Iran were treated as misunderstood entities that could be talked back into good behavior. In the case of Iran, all this did was give them a longer lifeline to develop their nuclear program. With Syria, it showed we wanted to treat a despotic regime all too happy to murder in citizens in large numbers as worthy of sitting at the table with us.

3) I don't think my bias is showing. The Arab Spring was a huge repudiation of the Obama engagement plan IMO. His administration was in the process of engaging and legitimizing many of the worst regimes in the region when they all blew up in a mass of angry folks wanting more freedom.

I totally agree with you on the world policeman statement and I agree we have overstretch. I also agree that recent policy shifts on the part of Obama administration, Iran specifically, have had effect. I just personally feel that when historians look back at this period, the Obama admin will not get a whole lot of credit for being behind these very dramatic political shifts. They happened almost in spite of his goals.

P.S. - I think the Federal Reserve debasing the dollar and spiking global dollar denominated prices for food and others staples is the real reason these citizens went from unhappy but docile to willing to overthrow armed rulers. The pain factor of living under these regimes became too high for them.
 
I also think if Iran does go nuclear and the region destabilizes, people will ask very tough questions about how his administration failed to reign in the Mullahs in time. Any notion of him meriting foreign policy chops is out the window if that happens.
 
Our big stick is currently wedged in the skulls of the Taliban and Saddam's Ba'ath party. We can't dislodge it and point it at others.

Also, this strategy was part of Teddy Roosevelt's plan to scare the crap out of our global competitors and make them more pliable in negotiations. We have already been threatening these nations for decades. Obama's motivation was that a friendlier approach . . . .talking down our big stick . and listening respectfully to these regime's issues. . . .was a smarter approach.
 
Shows you how mindless and false talking points can turn into doctrine for certain people. Relying on Diane Sawyer for analysis is the problem here.

Longest?? No

The Link

Costliest - Not even close. WWII costs us $4.1 Trillion in today's dollars, four times more than even the costliest projections for the Afghan War.
 
Good post, Prod.

When reviewing Obama's foreign policy stance on Israel, it's helpful to take the time to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. The President's interest in Israel must be judged by what he does (or doesn't do), instead of what he simply says. The media doesn't care to (or won't allow) this to occur.
 
This can't end well if Israel is committed to the position repeated today by its PM.- that Israel "must remain the master of its own fate" while Iran seeks to do the exact same thing.
 
He listed a series of slights that Obama has given to Israel over the course of his administration. It's not like they're a matter of perspective. The fact is that Obama has been the least Israel-friendly president in recent history, and he's now pandering to them because he thinks they're stupid enough to believe him now when he's thrown it in their faces for three years.
 
Wow... see I thought you were going to bring up something that was actually hidden. The reason I didn't think of that is that it never would have occurred to me that this would be your basis for supporting Obama's claim.

All he's doing is reiterating long-standing policy. So now, he's supposed to be proclaimed the guy who did more for Israel than any other recent president? Just by not doing an about-face on Palestine? I have to admit, I thought you were going to actually tell me something I didn't already know that might actually change my mind!

This wasn't hidden because it didn't fit the profile. It has been discussed in the media and not played up because of its compeltely unremarkable nature. But for you, any time Obama does anything ordinary, it is somehow transformed into some major, history-altering event. Your hero worship is really starting to show.

So what you're saying is that if someone else issues the same points that this guy did, you would address them? Because I can find plenty of people beside him that have noticed Obama's constant slights toward Israel. But of course, anyone who disagrees with Obama will be discounted by you as having no credibility, so I guess there's not much point in doing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. The Chiefs and that Swift gal. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top